RE: Gen-ART LC/Telechat Review of draft-ietf-isis-genapp-03.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ben -

Thanx for the review.
Inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 12:06 PM
> To: draft-ietf-isis-genapp.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; General Area Review
Team
> Cc: The IETF
> Subject: Gen-ART LC/Telechat Review of draft-ietf-isis-genapp-03.txt
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-isis-genapp-03.txt
> Reviewer: Ben Campbell
> Review Date: 05 Oct 2010
> IESG Telechat date: 07 Oct 2010
> 
> Summary:
> 
> The draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard, but
I
> have some concerns that I think should be addressed first.
> 
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> -- This draft creates an "expansion" code point in an IANA registry,
> where the expansion registration requirements are weaker than those of
> the parent registry. This always makes me nervous, as it opens the
> window for end-runs around the registration requirements of the
parent.
> 
> In this particular instance, the parent registry policy is "expert
> review" while the proposed expansion registry policy is "specification
> required". This draft puts normative requirements on the content of
the
> required specifications, and makes additional non-normative statements
> about the intended use of the GENINFO code point. This implies to me
> that the review process needs to do more than determine that
sufficient
> specification exists. Rather, it needs to determine that the criteria
> in this draft are met by that specification. Therefore, I think that
it
> would be appropriate for the GENINFO registry to use the "expert
> review" policy.

>From RFC 5226:

"Specification Required - Values and their meanings must be
            documented in a permanent and readily available public
            specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability
            between independent implementations is possible.  When used,
            Specification Required also implies use of a Designated
            Expert, who will review the public specification..."

We deliberately chose "Specification Required" because:

a)It requires a public specification
b)It allows the public specification to be other than an RFC
c)It requires expert review

> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> -- section 4.2, 2nd paragraph: "Where this is not possible, the two
> affected LSPs SHOULD be flooded as an atomic action"
> 
> Any reason that this is not a MUST, since it seems like the safety-net
> behavior for when the aforementioned SHOULD is not  possible to
follow?
> 

It is a recommended behavior. If an implementation does not do this it
does not create an interoperability issue - but it may create
sub-optimal behavior. 

> -- Section 4.3: "When information in the two GENINFO TLVs conflicts
i.e
> there are different settings for a given attribute, the procedure used
> to choose which copy shall be used is undefined."
> 
> Should their be normative requirement not to create this undefined
> condition in the first place?

If the revised version of a GENINFO TLV is sent in an LSP with a
different number from the previous version there can be transient
windows where other systems have two copies of information regarding the
same application. This may be unavoidable. For completeness we specify
that the choice of what to do in such transient situations is
implementation specific (undefined). This section does specify ways to
minimize the occurrence/duration of such transient periods.

> 
> 
> 
> -- Security Considerations:
> 
> This seems too lightweight. Is it impossible for GENINFO applications
> to include sensitive information? Are there no security guidelines
that
> should apply to GENINFO application specifications?

We have no way of knowing what type of information might be advertised
by a given application - and we are not limiting what may be advertised.
Clearly the public document which specifies the application would need
to address the security issues it introduces. We cannot do that here.

> 
> Even if the answer is that the underlying IS-IS protocol provides
> sufficient security for any reasonable use of the GENINFO code point,
> it would be worth saying that explicitly.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> -- section 2
> 
> Please expand IS-IS and PDU on first mention.

OK

> 
> -- section 6, last paragraph:
> 
> Expected/desired by whom?

Well, at least by the authors. :-)

> 
> -- Outdated reference for draft-ietf-isis-mi

It was current at the time the draft was written.


   Les

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]